> > > dict[key] = 1 > > > if key in dict: ... > > > for key in dict: ... > > > Independently of implementation issues about sets, I think this is a > > damn fine idea. +1. > > It's come up before. The problem with it is that it's not quite obvious > whether it is 'if key in dict' or 'if value in dict'. Sure, from the above > example it's obvious what you *expect*, but I suspect that 'for x in dict' > will result in a 40/60 split in expectations, and like American voters, the > 20% middle section will change their vote each recount :-) > > Now, if only there was a terribly obvious way to spell it... so that it's > immediately obvious which of the two you wanted.... something like, oh, I > donno, this, maybe: > > if key in dict.keys: ... > if value in dict.values: ... > > Ponder-ponder--Guido-should-use-the-time-machine-for-this-one!-ly y'rs, No chance of a time-machine escape, but I *can* say that I agree that Ping's proposal makes a lot of sense. This is a reversal of my previous opinion on this matter. (Take note -- those don't happen very often! :-) First to submit a working patch gets a free copy of 2.1a2 and subsequent releases, --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4